HP / 8600M VRAM--could this be real?

I am looking at an HP dv9500t. It has a 256MB 8600M GS in it. I went to the deep technical specs. and it says with 2GB or 4GB system memory you can put the VRAM on the 8600 up to 767MB. I havnt ever heard of something like this. i know about TurboCache and HyperMemory but it doesnt say either of those in the specs. I have found a few things before on thier website that were old or incorrect before, could this be the same? Thanks.

 

Its just TurboCache. It doesn't make much of a difference, since the 8600GS can't utilize it effectively anyways.

 

Yes,TurboCache is it. But... I do think you will see some good increase in graphics at 767MB. Hope I could help

 

for example?

 

a game would actually require you to use that 256 first before the turbocache allocates system ram to be used. either way it won't be too effective because the bus width and lower overall clock speeds would prevent the gs from giving any major performance boost.

 

well, does that prove this statement then: "I do think you will see some good increase in graphics at 767MB"
not trying to be a dick...but the difference is negligible

 

roughly speaking yes. a wee bit..maybe cut down a bit of lag or clipping.

 

k, not gonna argue anymore i respect other people's thoughts

 

i mean do you think that tripling vram via system ram is going to give a significant boost? (no sarcasm, serious question)

 

a SIGNIFICANT boost...no

 

Turbocache has been shown to be quite effective, for example a Go7400 with only 64mb dedicated performs practically identically to a Go7400 with 128mb dedicated, because of the Turbocace. Turbocache is not software only, like Hypermemory, it's implemented in the hardware. For the 8600M series, Ken (from Gentech) has shown that with 3GB instead of 2GB of system RAM, an 8600M-GS can practically double performance in some games, presumable because with more than 2GB, Turbocache can allocate more VRAM to the card.

 

great response. something my answers were lacking (actual info)

 

well obviously from 64 to 128 will be a considerable boost but from 256 to 767??

 

Yeah, the main reason Turbocache isn't too effective for most people is that they don't have enough system RAM to properly turbocache 1GB or 512mb or so and still have enough system RAM to run smoothly, so the card ends up only taking 128mb which isn't enough to see a significant benefit.

 

i think you would actually need 3gb+ to see good results but seeing that 3gb is rare and 4gb is more common but 4gb upgrade is quite costly so why not use that money to opt for a better gpu?

 

3gb isn't that rare anymore, I have 3gb in my desktop - with Vista 32 bit not supporting 4gb, you'll see a lot of people maxing out 3 now.